Overheard in Gloria Jean’s
Another Cautionary Tale for dealing with the Anglican Church[1]
By Louise Greentree
In November 2007, the Synod of the National Anglican Church in Australia approved the creation of a National Register of clergy and church workers accused (not convicted) of child abuse or sexual misconduct. The Age newspaper (distributed in the Australian State of Victoria) published an editorial on 23 October 2007: ‘Protect the innocent, ignore the unfaithful’ which commented on the dangers of unproven accusations to the civil liberties and reputation of anyone whose name was placed on the register. In response, the Chair of the Professional Standards Commission, Garth Blake SC wrote in a letter published in The Age on 26 October 2007 ‘…while some may argue that civil rights of accused people may be breached, many hundreds of thousands of others would put first the safety of the truly vulnerable in our society.’
Louise Greentree[2] argues that the National Church is confusing two separate issues: one issue is the protection of children from abuse, which is the function of the State criminal system (which is better equipped to handle such complaints in a manner that affords justice and fair process to the accused person), and the other issue is that of personal sexual misconduct that is not against the law, but against the Code of Conduct for clergy, and now extended to others in ‘lay’ work in parishes. This elevates personal misconduct of the ordinary parishioner to the category of an ‘offence’ instead of a simple pastoral issue. In other words: a crime instead of a sin. It closes off all the appropriate church responses to sin: pastoral care leading to repentance, forgiveness, and restoration, and replaces this with a secret blacklist.
This latest onslaught by the Anglican Church in Australia against its parishioners as well as its clergy is very disturbing. The story below is based on a true case that came to the writer’s attention, starting in 2005.
Overheard in Gloria Jean’s[3]
“Latte for you dear, and do try one of these – worth every kilojoule! So how was the America trip?”
“Fabulous, darling, absolutely wonderful, but I still get shivers about that horrid Salem.”
“Salem? As in the famous witch trials sixteen something or other?” “Our tour went there – I can’t believe how a whole town of people who called themselves Christians could murder – that’s what it was – murder twenty poor women just because they wouldn’t ‘confess’ they were witches – which of course they weren’t.”
“My dear, not much has changed! Except the state doesn’t let the church execute or imprison anyone – thank God! Let me tell you about my dear old Anglican church”
“I’m all ears.”
“Well, a few months ago I was having coffee right here with a young lady from our church. And looking for things to say, I asked her about her career goals. And she says ‘I want to train as a minister’ and without thinking I go ‘Darling you will never be ordained!’ Well she flushes and stammers ‘Oh I know as a woman here in Sydney I can’t be a priest, but I can do all I want as a deacon and we do have women deacons!’ I’m afraid my mouth runs away with me sometimes, and this was one of them. ‘Dear’ I said ‘you can’t be ordained because you’re a scarlet woman’ I think her reaction was what they call ‘going ballistic’ Well after I’d soothed her down best I could she said ‘What are you talking about? I have never ever done anything like that.’”
“ Did you believe her?”
“I did. So I go ‘Darling you know’ … I’ll call him X … ‘who used to work for the parish.’ ‘Oh yes’ she says ‘I was one of the youth leaders so I had a lot to do with him, and I used to babysit their kids so he and Mrs. X could go out sometimes.’ ‘Well’ says I carefully ‘You know he resigned last year, do you know why?’ ‘Not exactly’ says she ‘Some friction with the main minister I thought.’ Well, I thought I might as well get the skunk on the table so I launch out ‘Dear he resigned because he’d been charged by the Diocesan Professional Standards Unit with having an affair with you, hence you being the scarlet woman.’ You know if she went ballistic last time, you would definitely have to call this a full thermonuclear explosion!”
“She didn’t know?”
“Didn’t have a clue! No one could fake that reaction.”
“So these Professional Standards people didn’t bother to ask this young woman of ….how old?”
“Oh 19 or 20 I suppose at the time in question.”
“So they didn’t ask her as should have been the ‘victim’ what her story was?”
“Apparently not. But that my dear is but the tip of the iceberg!” “Do tell”
“Well she writes to Professional Standards and says it’s all lies, and they just go ‘the matter is still under investigation, we’ll tell you if you are required to appear before a tribunal’. So I think to myself, well someone must have made the complaint, maybe they saw or even thought they saw …well you know, and maybe got it all on the old phone camera. But I just couldn’t believe that my girl was lying. So I went to Mr. X.”
“You didn’t.”
“I may be a gossip dear but I like to have my facts straight! You just won’t believe what I found out!”
“Try me”
“Well there was this young man in the parish always saying he could do the job better than X, and when X resigned he got X’s job. Made a complete mess of it too, in my opinion, but the point is he was the one made the charges! Him, his wife, his best friend and his best friend’s wife!”
“So he sleuthed and caught them in flagrante on camera did he?”
“Not a bit of it! I told you that you wouldn’t believe this. They sleuthed like the chappies in the Bible trying to accuse Daniel, but they found zilch!”
“So how did they make charges stick?”
“This is the best bit … X showed me the official documents they signed, sent to him by Professional Standards, and they were all ‘we think’ ‘we suspect’, not a whisker of what anyone could call evidence, and their letter ended – cop this it must be an all-time classic – their charges ended ‘we know we have no proof but we really believe that (X & my young lady) were having sex.’ Can you credit it?”
“Ha that is priceless! So if I go to the Police and say ‘I know I have no proof, but I really believe my next door neighbour is a murderer’ do you think they’ll arrest him! I don’t think so!”
“No but on the strength of that allegation the man who made the charges has X’s job, and X has been out of work for nearly two years – a couple of other parishes wanted to employ him, he’s very good you see – but they can’t because he’s under investigation by Professional Standards. But going back to where we started that’s the whole point about the witch hunts, there never had to be any proof. Someone just had to say ‘she’s a witch’ and she was as good as dead. And nothing’s changed in the church.
“I’m speechless”
“I need another coffee”
“Now you’ve got me intrigued, it sounds like they’re still on X’s case”
“Oh yes dear they’re talking about bringing him before a tribunal.” “With no evidence against him and both him and the ‘victim’ saying ‘nothing happened’?”
“Well his wife would be the other ‘victim’ if it was true, but she is sure nothing happened too.”
“You look like there’re more juicy bits.”
“Oh yes! Cop this! About the time in question Mrs. X for reasons that are none of our business, had professional counselling over a period of many months.”
“No, surely not even the church would throw that at them” “Even better. They went to the counsellor”
“Who would say ‘anything told in counselling sessions is confidential
… privacy legislation … professional ethics’ … and throw them out”
“How little you know dear. This was a Christian counsellor, and this is for the good of the church so to such as her common ethics do not apply. Anyway Professional Standards are rubbing their hands together because the counsellor gave them a signed statement saying that during counselling Mrs. X said things about how she was afraid of losing her husband. So with this ‘new evidence’ the case is h-o-t.”
“Wait on, the counsellor still didn’t claim Mrs. X said there was an affair?”
“No. And Mrs. X says that there was months of counselling, she opened up all areas of her life to the counsellor, but she never thought anything like that, so she can’t see how she could have said that. Basically she’s prepared to stand up in court and call the counsellor a liar as well as unprofessional.”
“I feel like the Ancient Mariner ‘a sadder and a wiser man’. I am a Christian, and an Anglican, but sometimes I’m frankly ashamed …. Oh! Look at the time! I must pick up Christy.”
A case on similar facts has now been dismissed by the report of the ‘Experienced Lawyer’ under the Church Discipline Act 2002 (Sydney diocese).
Even more disturbing than the church placing the name of an employed assistant minister on this new ’secret register’ is that, in Sydney Diocese at least, the name of the young woman in such a case as this would also have been placed on such a register on the basis of the uninvestigated complaint, because, as she had been involved as a volunteer in the youth ministry at the church, she could fall within the category of ‘church worker’ as interpreted recently by the Chancellor of the Diocese, Acting Justice Peter Grogan, in relation to another case.[4]
Whilst it is perhaps understandable that a young person who is working as a volunteer in the youth ministry could possibly be a person who is working in a position of ‘power and trust’ (to use the phrase that was adopted to describe the persons against whom the National Synod’s recommendation of ‘model legislation’ for each diocese was directed), it is more difficult to do so in other cases. The Chancellor made his interpretation of the meaning of ‘church worker’ in relation to a lay person who made coffee after the evening service (attended by his wife and family of six children). This appears to have been called a ‘coffee ministry’. This opens the door to those unfortunate parishioners who carry out the ‘sweeping the leaves off the path ministry’, or the ‘weeding the garden ministry’ to have their names placed on a ‘secret list’ with senior clergy. Some of these people might in fact be working in such sensitive areas as diocesan schools (which are not covered by the model ordinance and do not need to be because they are covered by their contracts of employment), and yet, their reputation and their livelihood can be affected, without them even being aware that this has happened because of the untested complaints.
What has happened with the model legislation adopted in the various diocese of Australia is that the original, undeniably good intention to enable the church to discipline people in positions of ‘power and trust’ has been extended to cover parishioners and their behaviour which in the past would simply be treated as a pastoral issue, to be dealt with as part of the Rector’s or Vicar’s ministry to his or her flock.
This case is also a very strong example of the damage that is done to all people who are involved in the cumbersome, slow moving process that has been set up. The man, his wife and family, and the young woman have all been victimised by the process. Thus, now two years later, what was an obvious case without evidence raising unproven allegations of an affair has been dropped by the diocese. The ‘experienced lawyer’ stated it is based on suspicion of behaviour that had an innocent explanation.
One of the allegations was that, on one particular Friday evening after the close of the youth meeting, the young woman went to the local McDonald’s and found the assistant minister there. They sat at a table near the main door, and were ‘discovered’ by most of the members of the youth ministry, as well as a goodly number of other parishioners, all of whom habitually went there for supper after youth group and Bible study groups. It was only after an expensive investigation of the allegations, taking many months, that it was decided that a meeting in a public place like the local McDonald’s was not evidence of an illicit affair! When ridiculous allegations like these are given credence, then it is a sad day indeed for any parishioner who does anything for their church, and the latest secret blacklist is yet another nail in the coffin of lay ministry and volunteering.
The very sad thing is that only the innocent, the foolish and those in need of repentance and forgiveness (which is part of the church mission) will be blacklisted.
The ‘professional’ child abuser, the person who is part of a dark network of abuse, and who has faked a vocation to lay or professional ministry in order to obtain access to their obsession will not be caught in this fashion.
Child abusers need to be left to the State Police force, the criminal Courts and the State maintained lists of convicted child abusers.
Clergy (who are not employees) whether convicted of a crime, or engaging in behaviour that brings the church into disrepute (which includes sexual misconduct but also such things as failing to pay debts) need to come before a Tribunal hearing, and given fair process. They need to know who their accusers are, what is the nature of the accusations and given the opportunity to clear their names.
Parishioners need to be privately counselled by their ministers in a proper pastoral fashion, not victimised by their own church.
Louise Greentree
27 October 2007 Revised 7 April 2015
End Notes
[1] This article was first published on Louise’s Page on www.anglicanfuture.com in 2007. As readers will see, nothing has changed and the Anglican Church remains a dangerous place for persons who are vulnerable to being falsely accused – which is almost everyone, because of the way in which the Discipline Ordinance 2006 (Sydney diocese) is applied and the way people are denied the presumption of innocence, but listed on registers of child abusers on the basis of vicious gossip alone.
[2] Louise Greentree BA LLB (Sydney) LLM (Hons)(UTS) ProfCertArb(Adelaide), admitted as a legal practitioner (solicitor) to the Supreme Court as New South Wales and the High Court of Australia. Now non-practicing as a solicitor. Writer and consultant about church disputes. See www.churchdispute.com
[3]‘Gloria Jean’s’ is the name of a franchise of coffee shops located around Australia, originally from the USA.
[4] The fact that this interpretation was nonsense has been discussed in the article ‘Leadership, Ministry and an Espresso Coffee Machine’ on www.churchdispute.com It is completely shocking that the (now late) Chancellor and retired Judge should have made such an interpretation which ignored the definition in the Discipline Ordinance 2006 (Anglican church Sydney diocese) that for a person to be a ‘church worker’ they must, first, be holding a position of leadership.